The Supreme Court (SC) has declared unconstitutional a government order requiring all commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels to operate under a vessel monitoring and electronic reporting system, ruling that while the State has a legitimate interest in combating illegal fishing and protecting marine resources, the measure failed constitutional standards.
In a decision penned by Associate Justice Singh and promulgated on Jan. 21, 2026, the Court dismissed as moot the Republic’s petition assailing the trial court’s preliminary injunction, denied its appeal seeking to overturn the declaration that Fisheries Administrative Order (FAO) No. 266 was unconstitutional, and partly granted a separate petition filed by Oceana Philippines International and two municipal fisherfolk by reversing the trial court’s denial of their intervention.
It also directed the Department of Agriculture, through the Bureau of Fisheries and Aquatic Resources (BFAR), to rectify the deficiencies in FAO No. 266 and report its compliance to the Court.
FACTS AND ISSUE
The case stemmed from BFAR’s issuance of FAO No. 266 in October 2020, expanding vessel monitoring and electronic reporting requirements from vessels targeting straddling and highly migratory fish stocks to all commercial Philippine-flagged fishing vessels. The order implemented vessel monitoring requirements under the Philippine Fisheries Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 10654, to strengthen efforts against illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing.
Royale Fishing Corporation, Bonanza Fishing and Market Resources Inc., and RBL Fishing Corporation challenged FAO No. 266 before the Regional Trial Court in Malabon through a petition for declaratory relief with an application for a temporary restraining order and writ of preliminary injunction. They argued that the measure violated their rights to privacy, due process, equal protection and protection against unreasonable searches by compelling disclosure of trade secrets through continuous vessel monitoring. They also argued that it was issued without the required scientific study and stakeholder consultation and was prematurely implemented because municipal waters had yet to be delineated.
On Jan. 22, 2021, the RTC issued a writ of preliminary injunction stopping the implementation of FAO No. 266, finding that continuous vessel monitoring would unnecessarily expose the companies’ fishing locations and operations, which it considered trade secrets. It later declared the order unconstitutional and made the injunction permanent. The Republic elevated the rulings to the SC, while Oceana Philippines International separately challenged the denial of its motion to intervene.
The main issue before the SC was whether FAO No. 266 was a valid exercise of the State’s police power or whether it unconstitutionally infringed the fishing companies’ rights, along with the procedural issues raised by the Republic’s and Oceana’s petitions.
RULING
The SC affirmed the RTC’s declaration that FAO No. 266 is unconstitutional, reversed the trial court’s denial of Oceana’s intervention, dismissed the Republic’s certiorari petition as moot, denied its appeal, and directed BFAR to rectify the deficiencies in the administrative order.
The Court held that FAO No. 266 failed the rational basis test, finding that although the government’s objective was legitimate, less intrusive alternatives were available.
It also found that BFAR failed to meaningfully comply with stakeholder consultation requirements because affected parties were not adequately presented with the scientific basis for the regulation and the monitoring equipment had already been procured before the consultations were conducted.
The Court further ruled that the order authorized unreasonable searches and seizures and violated the rights to due process and equal protection, rendering FAO No. 266 unconstitutional.
“…the Court strikes down FAO No. 266 for failing to pass the Rational Basis Test and for being violative of Royale Fishing et al.’s constitutional rights against unreasonable searches and seizures, to due process, and to the equal protection of law,” the ruling wrote.
Follow Tan Briones & Associates on LinkedIn for more legal updates and law-related articles.
